W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Markup for legislation

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:13:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaOp3KUjrekTvEuh_T5PPwanGnFyfdpBxxW_TKOBVCWbAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Diego Perlman <diegoperlman@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Diego,

In Schema.org currently - Anything can use the Thing type, including
abstract ideas and even philosophical debates.

For the Law domain, and getting some useful properties for a law (a written
work), then I think CreativeWork makes more sense and has many useful
properties under it that you can use immediately.

We now use the Github issues for tracking community efforts around domains,
like Law.  But as of now, there has not been a formal community that has
gathered around the Law Domain. (yet)

You can look at the previous messages in our mailing list archives that
discuss "law" here:
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-vocabs&index-type=t&keywords=law&search=Search

If you are looking to get the most searchability across Search providers
for the Law domain right now, then you will also need to make sure to
include and fill in these properties (otherwise, they won't quite
understand what "kind" of CreativeWork your really describing :

about
additionalType
sameAs

Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Diego Perlman <diegoperlman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello, can anyone tell me which type of schema I have to use to
> describe legislation (a law or the constitution).
>
> I've tried two types:
>
> 1. Thing
> 2. CreativeWork
>
> But I think that I am usign the wrong types.
>
> I hope someone could help me.
>
> Regards
> Diego
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 October 2015 16:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:22 UTC